Communism running countries into the ground?

[Redswiss]

I'm wanting to believe otherwise, but has communism not pretty much destroyed more than a few countries, China being an exception?

Hell, I've actually found the answer myself whilst typing this up. Was pretty much all of ex-Soviet Russia dirt poor before Communism, and has China not rose to Nr. 1 manufacturing nation thanks to Communism?

The question remains: What of North Korea. As far as I can tell, it suffers mostly from a batshit insane dictator.

Your thoughts?

[Proletarian Ultra]

The question remains: What of North Korea. As far as I can tell, it suffers mostly from a batshit insane dictator.

It's funny. When we had sanctions on Iraq and people starved, the US government (e.g. Maddy Albright) made a big deal of bragging how they were starving people. Serve as an example or whatever. When we had sanctions on North Korea and people starved, it was all "ooh come and see how bad communism is!"

NoKo is really fucked up and revisionist beyond belief, but they've been hit hard for not knuckling under to the US.

[Scary Monster]

^Exactly. You have to consider North Korea's history. Right before the Korean war, all of Korea's population, who were left leaning, were massacred and bombed by the US and set up an illegitimate, unpopular government with Rhee as the president. Same story can be said about the phillipines and any other third world country. So, ever since then, North Korea has been under blockades and embargos by the west- starving the country. One of the founders of my socialist organization has actually been to North Korea in the 90s and met with people who were alive during the korean war, and he tells me how amazed he was at how much NK has been outright slandered. Their people are starving because of the blockades, but the government makes sure they get at least get plenty of soy milk. Take anything you hear from the west about another country with a grain of salt. I think the only reason why there is a "personality cult" in NK is because they view their government as the last thing standing between them and annihilation by the west.

I dont consider the USSR as having ever been communist, but I will say that their standard of living was great, in comparison to after Perestroika was implemented. Im pretty sure this is common knowledge- Mafia activity, starvation, poverty shot through the roof after Gorbachev's administration implemented capitalism. Following this was the USSR's complete collapse. They did not even start real recovery whatsoever until after Putin took office.

Lastly, look at Cuba. Like ive said many times- Cuba is the most prosperous Latin country, because of the communist revolution. Take a look at this: http://www.cubatruth.info/poverty.html The Stats & Comparisons are all taken from UNICEF and the UN. Cuba is doing far better, by leaps n bounds, than every other Latin country (as a matter of fact, most of them are occupied by, or is a puppet of, the US government).

Im pretty sure, by looking at history, that communism is damn good, when left alone from attack by western scum.

[Nolan]

I'm wanting to believe otherwise, but has communism not pretty much destroyed more than a few countries, China being an exception?

It didn't destroy them, it gave them all better standards of living and development, things capitalism denied them. The USSR and Albania improved drastically in socialism.


Hell, I've actually found the answer myself whilst typing this up. Was pretty much all of ex-Soviet Russia dirt poor before Communism, and has China not rose to Nr. 1 manufacturing nation thanks to Communism?

Yes, Russia was dirt poor before socialism, it improved greatly, and now most of the country is dirt poor again and getting poorer. Deng's economic growth would have been impossible without Mao's industrialization, the questionable validity of Maoism aside.


The question remains: What of North Korea. As far as I can tell, it suffers mostly from a batshit insane dictator.

Cool story bro

[Scary Monster]

It didn't destroy them, it gave them all better standards of living and development, things capitalism denied them. The USSR and Albania improved drastically in socialism.

Yes, Russia was dirt poor before socialism, it improved greatly, and now most of the country is dirt poor again and getting poorer

Yes. The thing that amazes me every time about the USSR, was how they went from a dirt poor, agricultural-based economy and feudalist government, to a major industrial power that did not need 3rd world slave labor, and launched a guy into freakin space before the US just 40 years after the october revolution.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

I'm wanting to believe otherwise, but has communism not pretty much destroyed more than a few countries, China being an exception?

Hell, I've actually found the answer myself whilst typing this up. Was pretty much all of ex-Soviet Russia dirt poor before Communism, and has China not rose to Nr. 1 manufacturing nation thanks to Communism?

The question remains: What of North Korea. As far as I can tell, it suffers mostly from a batshit insane dictator.

Your thoughts?

Basically none of the nations you have listed are communist or ever were. The USSR was a capitalist imperialist state like any other. The bolsheviks destroyed any chance of achieving communism in Russia when they took control from the working lass and reinforced the state. China is also a capitalist state with a totalitarian regieme, whereas North Korea is a highly militarised personal monarhcy.

Many of the third world nations that claim to be socialist or marxist etc do so because they were backed by the USSR during the cold war when the USSR and the USA were both setting up tin pot dictatorships.

Communism can only be achieved through proletarian revolution where the Working Class takes control over the means of production and creates a Stateless and Classless society.

[Redswiss]

Cool story bro

As I said, I don't know very much on the subject.
It's just what everyone's been telling me.

[Blake's Baby]

It's amazing isn't it, that the Soviet Union became as powerful as it did. After all, it was only the 5th biggest economy in the world before 1914, had the biggest and newest factories in the capitalist world, and about 1.5 million workers working on some of the world's best machinery, and pretty much the world's biggest railway system, after about 50 years of intensive capitalist development in the world's largest country. Wow, and with just those things to go on, they became a superpower in only 40 years!

As Anarchist Matt says, none of those countries were ever 'communist', not even Russia. And they all suffered under 'batshit dictators' (Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, the whole North Korean menagerie).

[Nolan]

It's amazing isn't it, that the Soviet Union became as powerful as it did. After all, it was only the 5th biggest economy in the world before 1914, had the biggest and newest factories in the capitalist world, and about 1.5 million workers working on some of the world's best machinery, and pretty much the world's biggest railway system, after about 50 years of intensive capitalist development in the world's largest country. Wow, and with just those things to go on, they became a superpower in only 40 years!

Your anus is not an acceptable source. Please provide one.

[Blake's Baby]

Beg pardon? Are you claiming Russia wasn't the 5th biggest economy in the world in 1914, that the Putilov factory wasn't the world's biggest (40,000 workers), that French and German capitalism (in particular) hadn't developed Russia massively between 1870 and 1914, that Russia wasn't the biggest country in the world...?

Tell me where you glean your 'facts' from, oh wise and prescient one, for all of the history books I've ever read about Russia must have been lying.

[Nolan]

Beg pardon? Are you claiming Russia wasn't the 5th biggest economy in the world in 1914, that the Putilov factory wasn't the world's biggest (40,000 workers), that French and German capitalism (in particular) hadn't developed Russia massively between 1870 and 1914, that Russia wasn't the biggest country in the world...?

Tell me where you glean your 'facts' from, oh wise and prescient one, for all of the history books I've ever read about Russia must have been lying.

Oh no dear comrade. I'm inquiring as to where you're getting your numbers. As in right now.

Oh and the part you left out is that rural peasants vastly outnumbered workers, and in WWI the army didn't even have enough weaponry, much less the fact that WWI, the civil war, and all the shit that followed pretty much erased whatever Russia had.

The fact is that Stalin improved the Soviet economy in every way.


Generally, Russia was economically backward; and by 1880 an industrial revolution had not taken place. The Urals did have iron industries and textiles were manufactured in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Russia was too big and her road and rail network not sufficiently developed. There was no effective banking system. The 1880s saw an industrial expansion in Russia. It has been called the 'great spurt'. Coal output from the Ukraine and oil from the Caucasus rapidly increased. The expansion was brought about by private enterprise. Government policy sustained it; however, for military reasons. Sergei Witte was minister of finance from 1892 to 1903 and sought to modernise Russia. He invited foreign experts to advise on industrial development. He believed in state capitalism - that is, he expected the state to direct the development of the economy. He negotiated foreign loans of capital, but held high taxes and interest rates within Russia. Witte has been criticised for making Russia too dependent on foreign loans, and for not diverting resources to light industry and agriculture. Witte had many contemporary critics who were suspicious of him and his policies. So industrialisation gathered pace during the period of Witte, who ensured that industrially was energetically supported by the state. The 1905-6 revolution interrupted this development, but thereafter there was a recovery and the period up to the 1914 war was a "second golden age" for Russian industry. However, nowadays it is held that state intervention to foster this development was not so important. Additionally, it would probably be a mistake to regard Russia as developing a capitalist mentality; Russia never developed an business ethos and free-enterprise economy. Typically, a Russian merchant of the Moscow region was ultra-conservative and came from an Old Believer family; they were concerned not to risk their position by political agitation. They were authoritarian and harsh in their treatment of workers, and tended to obstruct the efforts of government to introduce factory legislation. The situation was more dynamic in the peripheral regions, especially in Russian Poland and the Baltic area, where St. Petersburg increased in population from 1.25 million in 1897 to 2.2 million by 1914. It was an important centre of metal-working, textile industry and food-processing. Newer industries of chemicals, rubber and electrical equipment also developed there. Much of this was due to foreign investment. Labour productivity increased. The Putilov works, manufacturing industrial machinery and railway locomotives employed over 12,000 men. Shipbuilding, leather-working and brewing were also important industries. There were also jobs in banking, insurance and the civil service. In the south there was a major expansion in the iron and steel industry. This region produced 64% of the empire's iron and steel and 70% of its coal by 1913. Output of coal rose from 15.6 million tons in 1870 to 1.6 milliard tons by 1913. Firms organised into the Association of Southern Coal and Steel Producers, which was in effect a cartel that manipulated the market by making output quotas and fixing prices. This monopoly power was enhanced by the high degree of vertical integration in Russian industry - with corporations controlling every stage of production. In the north Caucasus at Baku oil extraction became a major business financed by the firm of Nobel; yet Russian percentage of total world output fell as oilfields were opened up in the Near East and elsewhere. Average gross factory output increased by 5 to 5.5% per annum during 1883 to 1913. Productivity increased by 1.8% during this period. Comparative growth rates for 1894 - 1913 are: [Table goes here - download the original pdf to see it.] Foreign trade in �millions was: [Table goes here - download the original pdf to see it.] Although Russian industrialisation was a success story, Russian industry was by no means firmly established by 1914, when the war struck. Historians debate whether Russia was or was not in a process of industrialisation in the period up to 1914. Alex Nove, the leading Western writer about Russia's economy, states that the question is "meaningless". The growth in the Russian economy was in part due to the worldwide boom of the 1890s. By 1900, however, there was a slump in international trade. Rapid industrial growth meant that the towns rapidly increased in size and there was overcrowding. With the slump came unemployment; however, there was recovery during 1908 to 1914, during which time state revenues doubled from 2 to 4bn roubles and the number of industrial workers increased from 2.5 to 2.9 million. However, real wages fell during this period. Between 1908 and 1914 there was 40% inflation, but wages only rose 8%. There was enormous industrial unrest. The number of strikes rose from 892 in 1908 to 3,574 in 1914. (There was a dramatic increase from 466 in 1911 to 2,032 in 1912). (The peak was in 1905 at 13,995.) There was a successful strike in St. Petersburg in 1896-7 by 30,000 cotton spinners and weavers; the won public sympathy and a law was introduced restricting work to 11.5 hours per day! However, whilst this figure is high it must be remembered that there were many public holidays in Russia and only 270 were worked. All associations of workers striving for better pay and conditions were illegal until 1906. There were increases in state supervision of work-places; in 1885 22% of workers in industry were subject to the factory inspectorate; this figure rose to 31% by 1909. More and more women were being employed in industry, and this upset trade-union activists who sought to maintain wage-differentials and exclude married women from working altogether.

http://www.blacksacademy.net/content/3753.html

[28350]

The countries you've listed became poor due to resistance to imperialism and global capitalism.

This is one of the few admirable things about North Korea - its unfaltering resistance to US imperialism ("but at what cost?").

[vampire squid]

Basically none of the nations you have listed are communist or ever were.

interesting.. so communists have never seized power where they were active, because communism has never existed as a political movement?

[Blake's Baby]

J Kennet: The Growth of Modern Russia

"By the late 1880s new industries were springing up around the big cities of Russia, and there was a rapidly-growing mining industry in the Donets Basin.
In 1891 the Trans-Siberian railway was begun ... the longest line in the world... Foreign capital to set up industries began to flow into Russia."

quoting L. Kochan: The Making of Modern Russia

"(I)n the last decade of the old century the smelting of pig-iron increased in Russia by 190 per cent (the equivalent rate for Germany was 72, for the United States 50, for England 18). By 1900 Russia had moved up from seventh to fourth place in world production. The same applies to the production of iron, coal, oil, and cotton. In every case the rate of growth in Russia far outstripped that of any other nation..."

"... a sudden, gigantic growth in the size of the urban working class. It more than doubled between 1865 and 1890, increasing not only faster than the population as a whole, but also at a faster rate than the urban population... By the beginning of the twentieth century, the total was touching on two and a quarter million..." (not 1.5 million as I erroneously stated quoting from memory; I apologise comrades for underestimating Russia's development)

"... the development of the railway network was one of the most impressive tokens of the post-reform decades.... Between 1861 and 1880 the track grew from 1,000 miles to more than 14,000 miles. Here was something akin to the English railway boom of the 1840s. Both foreign and native interests put up the capital..."

Bizarrely, a whole bunch of what you quoted backs up my argument that Russia had massively increased its industrial capacity before 1914. the facts you quote speak for themselves. The arguments over the interpretations of those facts are just that - interpretations.

I'll cheerfully withdraw the claim that Putilov employed 40,000 in 1917; according to this source - http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=141,1235,0,0,1,0 - it was only 30,000. I was again using figures from my memory. I was under the impression that the figure of 40,000 came from Trotsky, but I'm sure if it did, Workers' Power would be quoting it.

[Blake's Baby]

interesting.. so communists have never seized power where they were active, because communism has never existed as a political movement?

Interesting. So, do you always distort what other people have said, or is it just people you disagree with?

'Communists seize power = communism' is about as useful as 'Democrat elected President = democracy'.

Of course Communists have seized power. Some of them might even have been real communists as opposed to political gangsters with a red flag. But as communism will be brought about worldwide by the working class, not in one state by a Communist Party, the seizure of state power by communist parties is not the same as communism being instituted.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Lastly, look at Cuba. Like ive said many times- Cuba is the most prosperous Latin country, because of the communist revolution. Take a look at this: http://www.cubatruth.info/poverty.html The Stats & Comparisons are all taken from UNICEF and the UN. Cuba is doing far better, by leaps n bounds, than every other Latin country (as a matter of fact, most of them are occupied by, or is a puppet of, the US government).

CubaTruth is a shitty source filled with broken links, but you're largely right.

*Only country in the world with environmentally sustainable development (World Wildlife Federation)
*Best country in the developing world to be a mother (Save the Children)
*4th highest (and effectively tied for 2nd highest) in Latin America & Caribbean in Human Development (UNDP)
*7th in the world in the Happy Planet Index, which measures life satisfaction, life expectancy, and eco-footprint
*28th in world in infant mortality rate, better than US (UNPD)
*37th in world in life expectancy, better than US (UNPD)

Additional:
*The average Cuban consumes 400 more calories daily than the average Latin American.
*Cuba has the lowest rate of HIV in Latin America.

It doesn't mean necessarily that Cuba is genuinely socialist, but it gives you an idea of what can be done when free market capitalism isn't in charge, especially considering the embargo Cuba's been under for near 50 years.

[FriendlyLocalViking]

The question remains: What of North Korea. As far as I can tell, it suffers mostly from a batshit insane dictator.

We don't talk about that situation.

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


The countries you've listed became poor due to resistance to imperialism and global capitalism.

This is one of the few admirable things about North Korea - its unfaltering resistance to US imperialism ("but at what cost?").

I agree. The principles of the global bourgeois I have tried to explain here:

corruption (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1763280&postcount=36)

democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html)

@(A)narcho Matt:


Basically none of the nations you have listed are communist or ever were.

I see! And who are the multi-billionaires? Pleas read "Das Kapital" before you post such nonsense.

I agree, if you mean that after the war, a scientific pluralism* must take place, instead of an one-party/one-"god-person"-dictatorship.

*but not esoteric pluralism like democracy!



Do you have some real conceivabilities about the costs of armaments against the democratic-exploiter-nations?

For example: interventions-war against the young SU, second world-war, A-Bomb, H-Bomb, N-Bomb etc...


Kind regards

[(A)narcho-Matt]

@(A)narcho Matt:
I see! And who are the multi-billionaires? Pleas read "Das Kapital" before you post such nonsense.

I agree, if you mean that after the war, a scientific pluralism* must take place, instead of an one-party/one-"god-person"-dictatorship.

*but not esoteric pluralism like democracy!

Do you have some real conceivabilities about the costs of armaments against the democratic-exploiter-nations?

For example: interventions-war against the young SU, second world-war, A-Bomb, H-Bomb, N-Bomb etc...


Kind regards

Yes I have read Capital, and still the Soviet Union was never communist. The problem with Marxism and Leninism is the absurd idea that in order to achieve the emancipation of the working class then a state dictatorship must be enforced.

I think you are confusing soviet union foreign policy with class struggle. Just because political and economic power in a "socialist" nation is concentrated in the hands of state capital does not mean that it is any less exploitative than a nation where power is conctrated in the hands of private capital. This is one of the major reasons why leninists obsession with imperialism is so mental, because it is simply a continuation of the principles of soviet cold war foreign policy, i.e. if a country/organisation is anti-american/anti-nato then it deservs the support of communist. Its absurd. Real Revolutionaries support the working class not reactionary states or organisations because a couple of throwbacks to the glory days of soviet imperialism say so.

The aims of revolutionaries should not be the development of socialist nations and the entrenchment of the state, but abolishion of the state, national borders and wage slavery.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm sorry Matt, I agree with every word of your post except 'Marxism and'. Marxism does not posit a 'state dictatorship', ask the SPGB ('Britain's Oldest Socialist Party') if you don't believe me (no reason why you should, I could be a random nutter).

But honestly, despite what Bakunin said, there are Marxist out there who really do believe that communism will be against all states and governments, for a classless communal society - World Socialism or the World Human Community as it's variously called.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

dun dun industrialisation

There's no denying there were efforts by the tsarist regime to enact some industrialisation schemes and various public works projects (railways, etc) in the 40 years or so leading up to the revolution; however, this misses the fundamental point that, despite some efforts and some success in terms of industrial expansion, the country remained relatively underdeveloped, and boosted an enormous difference in development between the urban and the rural.

Being the 5th largest economy is hardly surprising considering its vastness.

Still, by 1960 it was the third largest economy.

I don't think a rough 2% of the national population considered "working class" is an indication of a well-industrialised nation, regardless...

In addition to this; it is not exactly fair to compare the railway system to these in Western Europe for example. The United Kingdom and Germany and similar can have very dense systems without adding enormously to total mileage, whereas Russia being a great expanse can easily add many miles without providing adequate density and coverage.

[Philzer]

Hi Matt!


Yes I have read Capital


The USSR was a capitalist imperialist state like any other.

Ok. Then you know, capitalism serves to accumulate capital.

The Soviet Union has developed her economy.

And what most forget with pleasure, pressure which the capital in the capitalistic countries exercises, you must substitute. Or you cannot make up leeway and will eaten by them. (armament race)


and still the Soviet Union was never communist

Thats true. Was socialist:

- the same educational opportunities
- no unemployment ..... and something like this


The problem with Marxism and Leninism is the absurd idea that in order to achieve the emancipation of the working class then a state dictatorship must be enforced

1. Marx doesnt think so, but he have never developed a system for the future, only some broken like "free worker associasion" :) What this should be? -> paradoxon of freedom (of three-dimensional freedom )

2. but i believe that the idea of "the decease of the state" is a fairy-tale.

The state must guarantee the 4-dimensional freedom of all.

-> otherwise you have immediately the same procedure: laissez-faire!


a state dictatorship must be enforced

I think it must be a "dictatorship of sanity" in the sense of Sigmund Freud.
I call this "scientific pluralism".


I think you are confusing soviet union foreign policy with class struggle

And I think you are confusing that the class struggle is a global struggle.

And the global bourgeoisie has won this with her successful strategy democracie (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html).


... power in a "socialist" nation is concentrated in the hands of state capital does not mean that it is any less exploitative than a nation where power is conctrated in the hands of private capital

This is a perfect lie from the bourgeois.

Compare the income differences in the systems!

In GDR between a cleaning worker and the director of a 1200 people factory: around 1: 5. But the cleaning worker has 43 h per week (after then he is absolute careless) and the director the double. (round about )

-> in capitalism: 1:50 and tendencies to 1: 500 or 1 000 (round)


because it is simply a continuation of the principles of soviet cold war foreign policy

Can you imagine that the mankind this at one days called "the period of the long peace" which the "stupid" communists have paid, when the working man of the democratic-exploiter-nations is driven Mercedes and BMW?

Do you know the real timeline of the development of A-H-N-Bomb?



Real Revolutionaries support the working class not reactionary states

Real revolutionaries support the future of mankind and not the bourgeois in her arms race against the socialism for god wages, to reactionary driving of wasting-cars etc...


a couple of throwbacks to the glory days of soviet imperialism say so

And you think the "new system":

- must start as a paradise
- fight against the top technology and the masses of the democratic-exploiter-nations with no problems and abdication of living-standard
- no pressure to get productivity etc etc etc

-> dream (or lie) on!


The aims of revolutionaries should not be the development of socialist nations

In theory is it true. But you will not understand the reality!

Your thinking is ideology pure.

( over 40 nations have tried to kill the young SU, and this wasn't the bourgeois itself! )


but abolishion of the state, national borders and wage slavery.

Excluding the first I agree, but with your unscientific fragments of a future society?

There only Platon occurs to me:


The citizen cannot recognise the truth.

Have a good night and sweet dreams of a worker-paradise!

[Blake's Baby]

dum dum, special pleading

I think the 'fundamental point' is that Russia had enormous advantages before WWI that aren't even being considered by some posters. Russia was not horribly under-developed before WW1, it was developing fast and had already overtaken other countries, such as Italy, where capitalism was more deeply rooted.

Capitalism began in Italy after all. Sure Italy is much smaller, but is that actually an advantage? Probably not, Mexico isn't more developed than the US because of its size for instance, even though the Spanish began investing in Mexico before the British French and Dutch began investing in the (soon-to-be-)USA.

So, as I say again; Russia had had a large and recent (therefore up-to-date) period of investment. Was it as developed as the USA, Germany, Britain and France? No. Was it more developed than Japan, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands? Arguable. It was certainly a bigger economy than those countries. Did Stalinism lead to Russia being a bigger economy than any of these countries? Well, not Japan at any rate. Did it produce spectacular growth rates? Certainly.

I think the myth of 'backward Russia' suits both the western bourgeoisie, who can say that the Russians are backward people who only respond to an autocratic leader (a common trope among political commentators - Peter the Great = Stalin = Putin) and also it suits the Stalinists who claim that Russia became great through The Glorious Leader's Glorious Leadership (following Trotsky's industrialisation plan, but that's another argument).

It doesn't do any justice either to the search for the truth or to the cause of the working class.